----- Original Message -----From: Paul DeemaSent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:50 AMSubject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon RotationPhilip M
Thank you for your response. It indicates among other things that I have something (many things?) to learn about terminology. I've found a new and interesting site which I think might help me -- assuming I can get my rapidly 'addling' (present tense of addled) brain to cooperate. It is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html.The angular momentum -- I think I may have the wrong term -- which I am referring to is that energy which exists in a body rotating -- note, NOT revolving or otherwise translating. The energy which would be present if it were the only body in the universe. The energy which would be demonstrable without reference to any other body.If you re-examine my illustration in that light, you may wish to modify your response.Regarding the poles as depicted in that part of my illustration which you have included here. I know it's a stretch but I meant literally what I depicted. The poles are indeed the 'ends' of the axis of rotation and the axis of rotation is indeed in the plane of the orbit. It closely resembles the orientation of Uranus in its orbit. This puts the equatorial plane orthogonal to its ecliptic ie the plane of its orbit.Please do re-evaluate -- I need your understanding.Paul D
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 1 December, 2008 9:41:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
well yes it has two elements of angular momentum.. One due to the orbital motion, and one due to its angular rotation around its own axial centre.. As my first answer was..
the answer is the same for diagram B.. The angular momentum of an object still has two elements... one with respect to its own centre axis, and one with respect to the primary centre.
However I have difficulty still with your terminology.. Poles generally refers to the opposite ends of the axis of rotation. In B you seem to have the poles shifted to the plane of the orbit, which now makes these the equator. and the rotation is still vertical to plane of the orbit, which make for new poles, to and bottom. and a new equator..
I did tell you I have difficulty reading static diagrams of a dynamic system.
Phil
----- Original Message -----From: Paul DeemaSent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:44 PMSubject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon RotationPhilip M
re Moon Rotation -- From Paul Deema Thu Nov 27 01:37:59 2008 (Attachment ThreeObjects.png) addressed to Allen D.I recall your oft stated difficulty visualising physical motions, moving mechanisms et al, but regardless, I am interested in your take on the questions included in the illustration. Allen of course has a vested interest in simply pronouncing my offerings as "Your post is nonsense!" but I believe that you may well be able to see what I am getting at.Would you comment please?Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now